Pages

Search NEWS you want to know

Saturday, November 24, 2012

From the very beginning, the no-confidence motion against the United
Progressive Alliance government mooted by the Trinamool Congress was
doomed to fail. A constituent of the UPA until recently, it was
unrealistic for the Trinamool to have hoped the opposition would rally
behind it. The Left parties, especially, saw the move as an
opportunistic tactic designed to gain political mileage in West Bengal,
where they too have high stakes. The main opposition, the Bharatiya
Janata Party, realised that a no-trust motion would have had less chance
of being carried through in the Lok Sabha than a resolution on the
Foreign Direct Investment under Rule 184 entailing voting. For one, a
no-trust move would have immediately prompted all the constituents and
backers of the UPA to close ranks and ward off the threat to the
government. But about FDI in multi-brand retail, many of the UPA
partners such as the DMK hold strong reservations as do supporting
parties such as the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party. Even
those not keen on unseating the government might thus feel pressured to
vote against the government on a resolution against FDI in retail, a
politically contentious issue. For the BJP, the less ambitious course
held out more hope. Without the prospect of an alliance in West Bengal,
the principal opposition party would have sensed no advantage in sailing
with the Trinamool on this issue. As the Trinamool attempt to move the
motion failed for want of the requisite numbers, another motion of
no-confidence will have to wait for at least six more months. But, in
the calculations of the BJP and the Left parties, this is a better
outcome than the government surviving a no-confidence motion and
emerging stronger with claims of Parliament’s endorsement for its
policies and programmes.

Sadly, the Trinamool does not seem to have learnt much from the fiasco.
Eager to be in the spotlight, the party had decided to move a
no-confidence motion without consulting others. Mamata Banerjee now
claims the Trinamool’s failed effort exposes the opposition parties that
did not support the motion, but this is hardly any consolation. Ms
Banerjee was hoping to project the Trinamool as the prime mover of all
things, but such short-sighted tactics showed up her party as hot-headed
and tactless. Given the composition of the current Lok Sabha, an
alternative to a Congress-led government is almost impossible. And
parties such as the SP and the BSP do not want to be seen as helping the
BJP even if they were to topple the UPA government. While the
government might have to face some more embarrassing situations, its
survival is not in question in the immediate future.

Friday, November 23, 2012

THIS forthcoming winter session of the parliament comes in the
background of growing political uncertainties. The much publicised major
cabinet reshuffle did not evoke any sense of confidence that the UPA-2
government is determined to tackle the major issues confronting our
peoples’ livelihoods. Allegations of corruption and scams continue to
rock the coalition leader, the Congress party. The coalition itself is
precariously placed, with the ally from Bengal having withdrawn and the
ally from the South virtually sulking and refusing to join in the
cabinet reshuffle.

Its majority in the Lok Sabha now depends on
the outside support of the Samajwadi Party and the BSP. On the other
hand, the principal opposition party appears to be in a disarray with
its president itself continuing in office becoming increasingly
untenable in the face of alleged corruption charges. How these
uncertainties will unfold will determine whether this session can hold
the government accountable for its acts of omission and commission and
force it to take tangible measures to provide relief measures to the
people.

The intersession period since the last washed out monsoon
session of parliament saw widespread protests against the government’s
decision to permit FDI in multi-brand retail sector. On an earlier
occasion, during the budget session, the then finance minister, who is
now the president of India, had assured the parliament that the
government will operationalise this decision only after wide ranging consultations
with all the stakeholders and try to build a consensus. The government,
however, betraying its own assurances to parliament, has decided to
unilaterally proceed with the implementation of this decision.

This
was met with widespread protests by a cross section of political
parties. The call for a ‘national hartal’ given by the Left parties
along with the Samajwadi Party, the Telugu Desam, the Janata Dal (S) and
the Biju Janata Dal was received with enthusiasm by the people across
the country. In Delhi, the leaders of all these eight parties courted
arrest protesting against this decision. Simultaneously, on the same
day, September 20, the All India Federation of Retail Trade
Associations had given a call for a ‘Bharat bandh’. An important UPA
ally from the South, DMK, openly announced its opposition to this move.
So did the AIADMK as well. Numerically, the strength of all these
parties put together constitutes a majority in both the houses of
parliament.

It is under these circumstances that the CPI(M)
leaders in both the houses of parliament served notices, under rules
that entail voting, for a motion disapproving this decision of the
government. Forcing the government to accept such a discussion, under
the relevant rules, and deciding to a vote would have decisively
frustrated the government’s efforts to allow FDI to prise open our markets
and access our resources for its profits at the expense of our people.
This strategy would have effectively cornered this UPA-2 government and
prevented it from going ahead with such anti-people reforms.

As
opposed to this strategy, some political parties, particularly the
UPA-2’s now estranged ally, the Trinamool Congress, has floated the idea
of moving a no-confidence motion against the government. Now, a
no-confidence motion is not an issue-specific motion. Usually, such
motions are considered when sufficient members in the Lok Sabha,
belonging to various opposition parties, can be mustered to ensure the
possibility of carrying this motion. In the event that the
no-confidence motion is unable to be carried in the Lok Sabha, then the
government gets not only a reprieve but also the opportunity to
interpret this vote as an endorsement of all its policies and its
governance. Contrary to the requirement of preventing the government
from carrying forward anti-people measures, the government would be
provided with the opportunity to impose further such measures invoking
the Lok Sabha’s endorsement as its legitimity.

In the current
scenario, when both the SP and the BSP continue with their outside
support to the government, the prospects of carrying the no-confidence
motion is very remote. Moving any such motion in the present context is
to provide an escape route to the government, instead of making it
accountable to the parliament and people. The tactics adopted by the
Trinamool Congress, thus, serve the interests of not only saving this
government but to provide it with a legitimacy to carry forward such
anti-people neo-liberal economic reforms. The Trinamool Congress will,
thus, be acting as the B-team of the Congress.

The Congress
party, on its part, is preparing to prevent any discussion in the
parliament under rules that entail voting. The union commerce minister
has claimed that executive decisions of the government have never been
subjected to parliamentary discussions under rules that entail voting.
When it was pointed out that on the March 1, 2001, under the NDA
government led by Atal Behari Vajpayee, a motion moved by then CPI(M)
MP, Rupchand Pal, disapproving the proposed disinvestment of Bharat
Aluminium Co. Ltd. (Balco) was admitted and discussed and voted upon
under a rule that entailed voting, the parliamentary affairs minister is
seeking to negate any such precedent by stating that the Balco disinvestment was a ‘stand alone’ issue and not a policy decided by the union cabinet!

This
is a very strange logic, indeed. The Congress party had, on that
occasion, supported the CPI(M) motion which was defeated by 239 votes
against 154. Leading the Congress support to the CPI(M) motion,
Priyaranjan Das Munshi, in that debate said, “Disinvestment and privatisation are two different things. If the equity participation of a management is 51 per cent, it is not disinvestment, it is total privatisation”. Clearly, the Congress then was talking about the NDA’s policy of privatisation
as opposed to a ‘stand alone’ case of disinvestment. These are the
facts. The Congress party cannot rely on falsification now to deny the
parliament its right to discuss and vote upon such an issue as FDI in
retail trade which has a vital bearing on the livelihood of at least a fifth of our country’s population.

Further, a public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court on this issue of FDI in retail trade. It is only after the apex court’s intervention that the RBI issued a notification amending the regulations to permit FDI in multi-brand retail trade.
This has been gazetted on October 30. The court further stated that
there is no reason to fear that the government will not place these amendments
in parliament. Hence, it further opined that since the parliament
session is to begin, this appeal should wait for its decision on the
matter. Similarly, at the time of Balco disinvestment, the Delhi High
Court also reposed their faith on the parliament while dealing with the
writ petition, then.

In this connection, Priyaranjan Das Munshi
said, “Both the judges reposed their faith on the parliament. They said
that since the matter is in parliament, let them complete the session,
then we will react. This is the respect shown by the judiciary to
parliament. How parliament should react? Should we fight for discussion
under Rule 184 and 193? Should we be swayed by the jugglery of Arun
Jaitley, linking the Balco deal with the world economy and with the
revival of all sick units? I think the parliament in its traditional
morality should stand and respond that we reject this deal and we demand
a JPC. It is not a matter of politics between the Congress and the
NDA; and between CPI(M) and the NDA. It is not a matter to score points
with the NDA partners. It is a matter of parliament’s own wisdom before
the nation. How should we react to this situation?”

It is in this
very same spirit that the government should agree for a discussion
under rules that entail voting and let the parliament decide on this
matter. In the final analysis, the ultimate sovereignty under our
constitution rests with the people of India and this is exercised by
their elected representatives in the parliament. The sanctity of our
constitutional scheme of things cannot be allowed to be undermined. (November 21, 2012

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Carnatica and Sri Krishna Sweets are back this year
with the annual L&T Bharat Sangeet Utsav, which will be held from
November 20 to 25 at Sarojini Auditorium of Kikkani School (off Brooke
Bond Road).

The festival begins with a vocal recital
by Nithyasree Mahadevan. The final day on November 25 will be marked by
carnatic vocal recital by M. Balamuralikrishna, who will also be
conferred with the title Bharata Sangeeta Kovidha. Bharata Natya Seva
Niratha will be conferred on S. Saraswathi of Vipanchee Natyalaya by
Swami Dayanandha Saraswathi of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam.

P. Unnikrishnan, Vijay Siva, Gayathri Venkatraghavan, Sangeetha Sivakumar and Abhishek Raghuram are among the other performers.

The
fusion and jugalbandhi segments consist of Sriram Parasuram and
Anoordha Sriram and Carnatica Brothers K.N. Shashikiran and P. Ganesh
with world percussion maestro Mark Stone from the U.S., who is on his
first visit to India, the organisers said in a press release. “The
uniqueness of this years’ programme is that we will present ragam,
thalam and pallavi in English, but by retaining the essential carnatic
flavour,” Mr. Shashikiran said. “This is to help Mr. Stone and some
others understand easily,” he said.

In the dance section, there will be performances by Vipanchee Natyalaya and Abhayasa Academy of Dance.

The internet radio will air the concerts live. For details, contact: 94440 18269 / 98400 15013.

The Shiv Sena chief gave voice to a Nazi impulse in Indian politics — one that poses an ever-growing threat to our Republic

“Fascism”, wrote the great Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci, in a
treatise Balasaheb Keshav Thackeray likely never read but demonstrated a
robust grasp of through his lifetime, “has presented itself as the
anti-party; has opened its gates to all applicants; has with its promise
of impunity enabled a formless multitude to cover over the savage
outpourings of passions, hatreds and desires with a varnish of vague and
nebulous political ideals. Fascism has thus become a question of social
mores: it has become identified with the barbaric and anti-social
psychology of certain strata of the Italian people which have not yet
been modified by a new tradition, by education, by living together in a
well-ordered and well-administered state”.

Ever since Thackeray’s passing, many of India’s most influential voices
have joined in the kind of lamentation normally reserved for saints and
movie stars. Ajay Devgn described him as “a man of vision”; Ram Gopal
Varma as “the true epitome of power”. Amitabh Bachchan “admired his
grit”; Lata Mangeshkar felt “orphaned”. Even President Pranab Mukherjee
felt compelled to describe Thackeray’s death as an “irreparable loss”.
The harshest word grovelling television reporters seemed able to summon
was “divisive”.

It is tempting to attribute this nauseous chorus to fear or
obsequiousness. Yet, there is a deeper pathology at work. In 1967,
Thackeray told the newspaper Navakal: “It is a Hitler that is
needed in India today”. This is the legacy India’s reliably
anti-republican elite has joined in mourning.

Monday, November 19, 2012

His bhumiputra theory flies in the face of our Constitution and works against the unity needed to ensure development

Muppadhu kodi mugamudayal

Enil maipuram ondrudayal

Ival Seppumozhi padhinetudayal

Enil Sindhanai ondrudayal

(This Bharatmata has 30 crore faces

But her body is one

She speaks 18 languages

But her thought is one)

Tamil poet Subramania Bharathi

Bhedad gana vinauyanti bhinnah supajapah paraih

Tasmat samghatayogesu prayateran ganah sada

(Republics have been destroyed because of internal divisions among the people;

Hence a republic should always strive to achieve unity and good relations among the people)

Mahabharat, Shanti Parva, chapter 108, shloka 14

Tesam anyonyabhinnanam svauaktim anutisthatam

Nigrahah panditaih karyah ksipram eva pradhanatah

(Therefore the wise authorities should crush the separatist forces trying to assert their strength)

Mahabharat, Shanti Parva, 108:26

Political
leaders, film stars, cricketers, etc. are all falling over one another
to pay tribute to the late Bal Thackeray. Amidst this plethora of
accolades and plaudits pouring in from the high and mighty, I humbly
wish to register my vote of dissent.

I know of the maxim De mortuis nil nisi bonum
(of the dead speak only good), but I regret I cannot, since I regard
the interest of my country above observance of civil proprieties.

What is Bal Thackeray’s legacy?

It is the anti-national ‘sons of the soil’ (bhumiputra) theory.

Article 1(1) of the Indian Constitution states: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”

Thus, India is not a confederation but a union.

Article 19 (1) (e) states: “All citizens shall have the right — to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.”

Thus,
it is a fundamental right of a Gujarati, south Indian, Bihari, U.P.ite,
or person from any other part of India to migrate to Maharashtra and
settle down there, just as it is of Maharashtrians to settle down in any
part of India (though there are some restrictions in J&K, and some
North-East States, due to historical reasons).

The bhumiputra
theory states that Maharashtra essentially belongs to Marathi people,
while Gujaratis, south Indians, north Indians, etc. are outsiders. This
is in the teeth of Articles 1(1) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution. India
is one nation, and hence non-Maharashtrians cannot be treated as
outsiders in Maharashtra.

The Shiv Sena created by
Thackeray attacked south Indians in the 1960s and 70s, and vandalised
their restaurants and homes. In 2008, Biharis and U.P.ites living in
Mumbai (the bhaiyyas who eke out a livelihood as milk and
newspaper vendors, taxi drivers etc.) were described as infiltrators and
attacked, their taxis smashed, and several beaten up. Muslims were also
vilified

This, of course, created a vote bank for
Thackeray based on hatred (as had Hitler, of whom Thackeray was an
admirer), and how does it matter if the country breaks up and is
Balkanised?

Apart from the objection to the ‘sons of
the soil’ theory for being anti-national and unconstitutional, there is
an even more basic objection, which may rebound on Thackeray’s own
people.

India is broadly a country of immigrants
(like North America) and 92-93 per cent of the people living in India
today are not the original inhabitants but descendants of immigrants who
came mainly from the north-west seeking a comfortable life in the
sub-continent (see the article ‘What is India?’ on my blog
justicekatju.blogspot.in and the video on the website kgfindia.com ).

The original inhabitants (the real bhumiputra)
of India are the pre-Dravidian tribals, known as Adivasis (the Bhils,
Gonds, Santhals, Todas, etc.) who are only 7-8 per cent of our
population today.

Hence if the bhumiputra
theory is seriously implemented, 92-93 per cent of Maharashtrians
(including, perhaps, the Thackeray family) may have to be regarded as
outsiders and treated accordingly. The only real bhumiputra in Maharashtra are the Bhils and other tribals, who are only 7-8 per cent of the population of Maharashtra.

Several separatist and fissiparous forces are at work in India today (including the bhumiputra theory). All patriotic people must combat these forces.

Why
must we remain united? We must remain united because only a massive
modern industry can generate the huge wealth we require for the welfare
of our people — agriculture alone cannot do this — and modern industry
requires a huge market. Only a united India can provide the huge market
for the modern industry we must create to abolish poverty, unemployment
and other social evils, and to provide for the huge health care and
modern education systems we must set up if we wish to come to the front
ranks of the most advanced countries.